July 24, 2014, 09:12:44 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Axilrod

Pages: 1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 92
1156
Lenses / Re: What about a new 50/1.4 ??
« on: January 27, 2012, 04:40:01 PM »
If someone wants an upgrade from the current 50mm f/1.4 but doesn't want to lay down the dough for a 50L, I think the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 is a fantastic lens. 

You can find them for around $600 used and they are razor sharp, color rendition/contrast are absolutely beautiful.  That is if you can live without Autofocus.

1157
EOS Bodies / Re: Poll - What is the Mystery Canon Body?
« on: January 27, 2012, 04:34:36 PM »

However, that's not the case with the mystery cam--the LCD is clearly NOT a 3x2 ratio but is 16x9 or so, and this obviously is a direct video feature that is at odds with a stills dedicated camera.


I don't know about that...to me, it just looks like a 3x2 screen which due to the angle at which the shot was taken looks wider than it is. I call optical illusion :-)

If this really is the 5DX, then the styling is modeled heavily after the current 7D (it's almost identical), and somehow I don't see them doing that with 5DX. I'll place my bet on 7DX :-)


There were multiple angles, not just one, and it's obvious its noticeably wider than a 5DII or 7D screen.
http://photorumors.com/2012/01/23/canon-5d-mark-iii-200-400mm-600mm-prototypes-spotted-in-kenya/

1158
Canon General / Re: Patent: Canon RAW Video
« on: January 27, 2012, 12:56:00 PM »
Yes!  I knew they'd figure something out.  Hope this is what's coming to the CDSLR. 

I really think aside from really high resolution the CDSLR will require a lot of accessories to do everything a C300 does, hopefully the price will reflect this. 

1159
Lenses / Re: I can't believe I bought a $2000 prime.
« on: January 26, 2012, 04:38:29 PM »
Hi, I know the feeling very well. In November I bought the TS-E 24L II, my most expensive lens so far. For months I wanted this lens but a new one costs about 1900€ (~$2500). To get a used one is almost impossible. Then I found an ebay auction one night and did not think twice. I got it used for 1640€ (~ $2000). It came from a small camera shop which opened the box maybe once or twice. The lense arrived in a perfect condition and I couldn't tell it from a new one. After the first shots I'm really in love with the lense and never gonna sell it again. The lens is worth every cent and will probably last a lifetime. And I can sell it for them price like I bought it...

When I bought my first DSLR in a kit (450D + EF-S 18-55 + EF-S 55-250) I was much more sure to spend the 800€, although with an income of a student it was a lot of money for me. I never did regret more a purchase than this one. The 450D is great but both lenses were a totally waste of money... Since this purchase I bought all new lenses and even my 5D Mark II as used. It saved me a lot of money (20-40% depending how lucky I was) and the loss is not that great if I regret a purchase once again.


For anyone else looking for a good used deal on the TS-E 24mm, Lensrentals sells them quite often, they actually have one now : http://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon-ts-e-24mm-f3.5l-ii-serial-number-12996

1160
interesting... fans of House will know an episode was used to film it too....

I didn't know episodes were used to film house! ;)  They used it for a finale because of its ability to shoot in tight spaces (there was some sort of disaster in the episode).  But I'm pretty sure they continued using it and still do.

1161
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 26, 2012, 10:24:24 AM »
Don't talk to me like I'm a F______ idiot that misunderstood your post, you said this:
"the 70D could have better AF, better body construction etc. and the 7D MK2 would still have some edge.

he said BETTER yes.
but he said not BETTER then WHAT, so BETTER watch your tone.

Listen Mr. Internet police, he said the 70D could have better AF, better body construction etc. and the 7DII would still have an edge.  How does that not make it sound like he is comparing the two?

1162
Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 26, 2012, 10:16:57 AM »

It doesn't matter what he needs or wants, as cheap as his friend is supposedly selling those lenses it would be foolish not to buy all of them....if not for use, for resale, at which point he would have a much larger budget to get what he actually needs.

Well from an economic standpoint, sure.

Does it matter how the lenses were acquired by the friend from a legal standpoint? [since we are unconvinced of his honesty...]

Nope, his friend told him it's someone that works at Canon, must be someone that works at Canon.  Come on people I feel like we are calling a hooker an "escort" right now.  Everyone is carrying on pretending like they don't think this kid is completely full of S___, or that his buddy isn't completely full of S___. 

I honestly laughed when I saw someone still trying to recommend lenses on the 3rd page.  It's like "oh I'll avoid all this talk of stolen, broken lenses and just recommend the 85  1.8!"

I really think the kid is just making all of this up to create small talk honestly, some people are odd like that.  I think he figured "hey stuff that's used usually sells for half price, so I'll say my buddy is selling these lenses for half price. durrr hurrrrr hurrrrrrrrr"
Followed by "oh S___ they almost the same price as new, RUUNNNNNN!"

Hence, the lack of posts after people pointing that out.

1163
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 26, 2012, 10:09:40 AM »
Edit: Misunderstanding, carry on.

1164
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 26, 2012, 10:06:15 AM »
im just thinking here....

canon said it will not abandon the APS-H sensor format.

would it make sense for canon to put an APS-H sensor in the 7D MK2?

why or why not? what do you think?

i think what speaks against it is EF-S lenses....
but on the other side it would be a nice seperation from the XXD models.

the 70D could have better AF, better body construction etc. and the 7D MK2 would still have some edge.

This makes no sense, the 7D has one of the best autofocus systems out of any Canon camera right now, and the 60D AF is definitely inferior.  You're saying that in one generation that the 7D will improve the AF barely any and the 70D will somehow catch up and pass the 7D?

And if the 70D had better AF and better body construction, how would a 7DII with APS-C have an edge over it?  If you're a wildlife/sports photographer it's not an edge at all. 


The 7D has a mighty edge precisely because of it's crop. 1.6 is a lot more reach than 1!

I meant APS-H

1165
EOS Bodies / Re: The Canon 5D line and AF...
« on: January 26, 2012, 10:03:53 AM »
So with all the rumors about the Canon 5D III, there is obviously a lot of speculation about what features it may have. I've noticed that when people post their ideas about what they expect in a 5D III body, they inevitably contain some form of "7D AF". I'm curious where that idea comes from. Personally, I see the 5D III positioned very differently, and as far as I can tell very appropriately, in the canon lineup compared to the 1D X and the 7D lines. I see the 5D line as a camera primarily (but not solely) tuned for landscape, weddings, studio, amateur astrophotography (know or know of a fair amount of people who use the 5D II for this), extreme macro (100mm f/2.8 and MP-E 65mm stuff...where low noise large pixel really helps gather the necessary light at necessarily tight apertures) and DSLR video work. In pretty much all of those cases, and many of the more fringe use cases, there does not appear to be a strong need for high FPS and super-awesome AF. When it comes to landscape, astrophotography, and video/cinematography, and macro autofocus is pretty much useless in any respect...manual focus really reigns king. The need for AF for other kinds of photography that you might use a 5D III for such as weddings, generally don't involve the kind of crazy high speed action you might find in motorcross; ski and snowboarding; baseball, football, soccer, etc; even wildlife and bird photography.

Granted, the bottom-rung AF system the 5D II has is definitely not worthy of a professional-grade camera, and NEEDS to be replaced...however is a top of the line AF system designed for AI Servo type continuous tracking of high speed subjects really necessary? Am I missing something in thinking that the 5D III needs an improvement to its AF system, but nothing on the level of the 7D? Am I not fully realizing the primary ways that the 5D II is used that would warrant a high speed AF system, and why a 1D X wouldn't be used instead? I'm mostly just curious, but also wondering if Canon has positioned the 5D line incorrectly according to the people who are interested in buying one and expect a top notch AF system like the 7D's.

Hmmm, you don't have a 5DII in your sig, interesting that you bash and marginalize the camera's AF system.  Is that all based on stuff you've read from other people?  It's going on 4 years old, so sure it could be better, but it really isn't that bad.  I think more of the problem is user error, using the wrong setting or combination of settings. 

Think about how many people bought 5DIIs that had barely any photography experience (I was one of them, although I had a T2i for 8 months beforehand).  Now think about how easily those people may have overlooked something and how quick they may have been to judge.  Plus you have a bunch of fools on the internet telling them "oh it sucks," so they go take 3 pictures and 1 is out of focus and they figure "oh well the internet said it sucks so it must suck, couldn't be me."

That's pretty much what happen to me, I played around with it, remembered that everyone had said that it sucked, and figured that it must have.  But then months later I played around with the settings some more and realized that it really wasn't bad at all (and this was shooting my dogs running full speed).

And I'm sure tons of those people went out and tried to shoot sports and other fast-moving stuff, and that's setting yourself up for disappointment.  The 5D was never marketed as a fast sports camera, not at all.  Sure the 5D may not be the best, but if you're doing studio work it does absolutely fine. 

Neuro is right, people take the best aspects of multiple cameras and smash them all together and hope that they get one cure-all camera, but it just doesn't work like that.  All of them are fantasizing and they all want a single, dirt cheap camera to come out that does everything that they personally want it to do.

1166
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW and ISO
« on: January 26, 2012, 09:51:33 AM »
Aargh! Somewhere buried in the posts of the last week or so (I think) was a discussion of RAW files, native ISO, how digital cameras read the data, etc. etc.

Now I can't find it. But, at any rate, it was way more technical than I could follow. I'm wondering if some of the more technically-minded participants might be able to give us non-techies a simplified explanation of what they were talking about and why it matters (if it does indeed matter).

When I go out to take pictures and set my 7D to ISO 400 (hey! I shot Tri-X most of my life) and shoot RAW am I really setting the ISO to 400 or am I making some compromise that I am not aware of. And, should I care?



There ARE some very specific caveats about ISO settings when it comes to Canon that do not apply to other sensors (namely, Sony sensors). Canon uses a base/push/pull approach that can really throw you for a loop. First, the base ISO settings, i.e. 100, 200, 400, 800, etc., are the only true "native" ISO settings with Canon cameras (1D X and possibly future gear excepted, they have likely moved to a different approach now). Intermediate settings, such as 125, 160, 250 320, etc. are either "pushed" or "pulled". High ISO settings can be a complex mosh of a variety of methods to achieve the final result.

Every increase in base ISO setting is going to have an impact on DR, usually about 1 stops worth, but its never quite that cut and dry in the real world. This is because you are amplifying the analog signal beyond the lowest native setting of 100 on a scale that has a hard cutoff once you surpass the maximum limit (i.e. 12 bits of luminosity), where your DR should (theoretically) be at its highest. The lower dynamic range may pose problems with clipped highlights if you are not careful. Technically speaking, this should be true for every camera, not just Canon, simply as a matter of physics.

When it comes to ISO 125, 250, 500, etc. those are all "push" settings. Its the base ISO with a +1/3rd stop of in-camera digital "overexposure". When it comes to ISO 160, 320, 640, etc. those are all "pull" settings. Its the base ISO with a -1/3rd stop of in-camera digital "underexposure". This is why some settings on Canon cameras appear to have higher noise than higher ISO settings (i.e. ISO 500 tends to be a bit noisier than ISO 800), and why some settings appear to have lower or similar noise as lower ISO settings (i.e. ISO 320 can be as clean as ISO 100). When it comes to really high ISO settings, such as ISO 3200 or 6400, the story is even more complicated. You end up with several stops of standard analog amplification to ISO 1600, then one or more additional varieties to increase ISO beyond that...you may end up with some additional but less effective analog amplification as well as some digital boost. This is usually why moving from ISO 1600 to ISO 3200 usually results in a LARGE increase in noise, where as moving from ISO 800 to ISO 1600 or ISO 400 to ISO 800 results in a more reasonable increase in noise.

The information above is based on a great post by Daniel Browning on the Canon Digital Photography Forums: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1081982. You can also see the effects of Canon's (probably flawed) approach to ISO settings in this Vimeo video: http://vimeo.com/10473734. For comparison, the D7000 uses one of Sony's newest sensor designs that seems to do a more consistent job with gradually increasing noise: http://vimeo.com/26211959.

Hopefully, the visual examples will clarify the nitty-gritty technical stuff that you were not able to understand from whatever you were reading before. As for whether it matters, overall, mostly no, but on some level, maybe. Noise and the amounts of it tend to be way overblown most of the time. The more we push resolution, the less meaningful noise becomes. If you double the resolution of a sensor, and pixel peep an image from the previous vs. the one from the second...the second will likely "appear" noisier...however there are twice as many pixels, and the apparent noise of every 2x2 block of pixels from the higher resolution represents a single pixel from the lower resolution sensor. Scale down the larger image to the same size as the smaller, and the noise characteristics will likely be the same. The scaled-down larger image could very likely appear LESS noisy, as downscaling has the effect of absorbing small-scale undesirable artifacts. Print is similar, and in a sense, a certain amount of noise is actually USEFUL in print. Print is often as least three times to as much as ten times as dense as a computer screen. Any amount of noise that may be visible at 100% crop on a computer screen with 72-100dpi is likely to be entirely invisible in print at 300-720ppi. A perfectly smooth gradient will usually posterize (create visible banding) in print, but a bit of noise or film grain will usually eliminate any posterization.

One area where higher ISO settings could matter is dynamic range. Every full stop of ISO increase usually means you lose about a stop of DR. With Canon's approach to ISO, you may also lose an extra 1/3rd stop if you are using a push or pull setting, possibly more if you are shooting above ISO 1600. A lot of stuff we photograph doesn't need huge dynamic range, and for the things that do, such as landscapes, we can usually get away with much longer exposures and lower ISO settings (half the time, a long exposure is required for artistic effect...such as long water exposures.) If you need both maximal dynamic range and high sensitivity, then you very likely ARE making a trade-off, and you should be aware of the consequences, as it may affect your ability to get the shot you want.

I wouldn't worry about normal ISO settings...the noise we see at ISO100-800, and for newer cameras even ISO 1600, is pretty much a non-issue in real-world scenarios. The only time noise can really become a problem is when you have to use a higher setting like ISO 1600, 3200, maybe even 6400...and you simply don't have enough available light to really get a full exposure. (I have this problem a lot as I shoot wildlife like elk and deer, and birds, and they usually come out to feed right as the sun sets. The very dim light usually means I have to use ISO 3200 or even 6400, and am unable to fully expose the sensor at the shutter rates necessary to capture the action. You can have the same problem indoors with lenses with small maximum apertures, such as f/5.6.) Noise can become a real problem at that point, and it doesn't really matter what camera brand you use. There are solutions to those problems to, though. You can use flash to produce more light, find ways to increase the available lighting, find ways to reduce the necessary shutter speed (i.e. IS/VR lenses), etc. Dynamic range can really suffer at higher ISO settings, especially if you available light and shutter speed requirements are limiting your ability to fully expose and maximize the use of the sensors available DR.


I have no idea what Mr. Wizard is talking about and no way I'm reading something that long on a message board, but for shooting video use ISOs that are multiples of 160.  I've stuck with throughout all my shoots and the results are definitely better.  This is well known so someone may have mentioned it, but I think it goes against what this guy is saying.

1167
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 26, 2012, 09:45:19 AM »
im just thinking here....

canon said it will not abandon the APS-H sensor format.

would it make sense for canon to put an APS-H sensor in the 7D MK2?

why or why not? what do you think?

i think what speaks against it is EF-S lenses....
but on the other side it would be a nice seperation from the XXD models.

the 70D could have better AF, better body construction etc. and the 7D MK2 would still have some edge.

This makes no sense, the 7D has one of the best autofocus systems out of any Canon camera right now, and the 60D AF is definitely inferior.  You're saying that in one generation that the 7D will improve the AF barely any and the 70D will somehow catch up and pass the 7D?

And if the 70D had better AF and better body construction, how would a 7DII with APS-H have an edge over it?  If you're a wildlife/sports photographer it's not an edge at all.  It just doesn't make sense, right now 7D > 60D, so if they both get upgraded 7DII > 70D.

1168
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 26, 2012, 09:41:24 AM »
the 1D line had two different sensor formats.

maybe they could call it 7Ds. ;)

The 1D line is the top of the line and any camera that Canon wants to list as Flagship will get that number. Anyone who knows enough about cameras to buy anything in that line will know what he or she is getting. Anything that isn't a flagship will be differentiated so as to avoid confusion. There is absolutely no reason to confuse people by changing the sensor in an existing line. It makes no sense from a marketing perspective.


Agreed 100%.  Plus there is already a 7DSV (http://www.photographybay.com/2010/08/17/canon-eos-7dsv-studio-version-announced/), which would make it incredibly confusing. 

1169
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mk2 ..... APS-H
« on: January 26, 2012, 09:39:36 AM »
the 1D line had two different sensor formats.

maybe they could call it 7Ds. ;)

Well considering they just merged the 1-series cameras it doesn't seem likely that they would branch out the 7D.

1170
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3/X and Other Random News
« on: January 25, 2012, 06:03:35 PM »
I really do hope this new body gets announced on February 7th!
 ???

Where is this date coming from?  Seen it several times but can't figure it out, is that the anniversary or whatever?

Pages: 1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 92